Getting Over the Two Great Humps:
Further Thoughts on Conquering the World

Rereading George Jackson

By Bob Avakian, Chairman of the RCP, USA

Revolutionary Worker #968, August 9,
1998

This article is excerpted from a new work
by Bob Avakian called "Getting Over the Two Great Humps:
Further Thoughts on Conquering the World." This work deals with
strategic problems of the world revolution--getting over the
hump of seizing power in different countries and getting over
the hump in terms of defeating the imperialist system on a
world scale. Other excerpts from this work will appear in
future issues of the Revolutionary Worker/Obrero
Revolucionario.

*****

Recently, I went back and re-read the writings of George
Jackson, especially Blood in My Eye, which I found
very interesting and full of a lot of insights on the question
of how to make revolution in a country like the U.S.--even
though, ultimately, I found I had to reject George Jackson's
basic approach as a strategy for revolution. But I didn't start
re-reading his writings with the orientation that I disagreed
with them. Based on a previous reading of his work (as well as
my general understanding of the theory and practice of
revolution), I thought that his basic strategic orientation had
to be rejected, but I consciously approached the re-reading of
his writings by "suspending" my previously-held conclusions on
this. I said to myself, "I am going to read this as if I've
never seen his writings--I am going to look at his line and
see, in light of my basic understanding of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM), does his line make sense after
all." I had to end up concluding, once again, that we should
reject his line, as a strategic approach. But along the way
there are a lot of real things--very important
contradictions--that he is grappling with, and there are some
real insights in the way he is grappling with them, even though
ultimately I think the line has to be rejected as a strategic
orientation.

Now, it is important to note that by the time George Jackson
wrote the letters and other writings that went into Blood
in My Eye, he considered himself a communist and insisted
on being considered a communist. He specifically said I am a
communist--I am not a "communalist," I am a communist.

It is very interesting--he did have elements of the view
that African society sort of naturally lends itself to
communism, to collectivism and cooperation, but he didn't want
to be considered a "communalist." He wanted to be considered a
scientific communist. That is very interesting and very
positive: he openly promoted communism and was not the least
bit apologetic or defensive about it. That is very striking in
re-reading these writings.

At the same time, his view of communism was somewhat of an
eclectic mix of genuine communism--as represented by his
continual references to Mao Tsetung and his attempts to apply
important aspects of (what we then called) Mao Tsetung Thought.
But it was an eclectic mix of genuine communism on the one hand
with aspects of revolutionary nationalism and in fact
revisionist influences (via people like Angela Davis, who had a
significant influence on George Jackson, among others). But,
despite that, there is still much that we can learn from his
writings--through applying a consistently communist, that is an
MLM, method and approach.

To the Slave Revolution Is an Imperative

The following from Blood in My Eye goes very much
to the heart of the contradictions involved in building the
revolutionary movement among those whose conditions most cry
out for revolution, and among the basic youth in
particular:

"To the slave, revolution is an imperative, a love-inspired,
conscious act of desperation. It's aggressive. It isn't `cool'
or cautious. It's bold, audacious, violent, an expression of
icy, disdainful hatred! It can hardly be any other way without
raising a fundamental contradiction. If revolution, and
especially revolution in Amerika, is anything less than an
effective defense/attack weapon and a charger for the people to
mount now, it is meaningless to the great majority of
the slaves. If revolution is tied to dependence on the
inscrutabilities of `long-range politics,' it cannot be made
relevant to the person who expects to die tomorrow." (pp.
9-10)

I think that in this statement George Jackson manages to
capture and concentrate a lot of the intense contradictions of
our road--our path to revolution--and of everything we are
trying to do.

Let's talk about what there is to agree with in the basic
orientation expressed in this statement, what do we have to
disagree with, and what synthesis can we come up with in
relation to what it raises. It is important to note here that,
to a large degree, what George Jackson is polemicizing against,
in this passage and repeatedly throughout Blood in My
Eye, is the "gradualist" line of the revisionists. Even
though, ironically, he was significantly influenced by the
revisionists, the fact that he was polemicizing against the
revisionist line and outlook is a reflection of the fact that
the only two real alternatives he saw were the line he put
forward (as reflected in the statement cited above) and the
revisionist line of slow gradual evolutionism.

The fact that he saw these as the only two alternatives is a
reflection of, on the one hand, the eclecticism in his own
thinking and, on the other hand, some real lacunae, some real
gaps in his own thinking. Even though he read Mao Tsetung--in
terms of actually finding a way through the difficult
contradictions of making revolution in a country like the U.S.
and not getting drawn into either "left adventurism" or openly
rightist, revisionist lines (the opposite dangers of Charybdis
and Scylla* as they pose themselves in the revolutionary
process in a country like the U.S.) George Jackson didn't find
the right synthesis. He didn't find the right synthesis that
would reject the revisionist line, but reject it on a correct
basis, and avoid falling into a line--which ultimately couldn't
be maintained--that would lead to getting onto a war footing
with the imperialists, under conditions where that could only
lead to the revolutionary forces being smashed and defeated
politically as well as militarily.

He was grappling with the contradictions in some very
important ways--and, again, I am not saying this mainly to
negate what he did or to cast him mainly in a negative light. I
think that, particularly for the time (almost 30 years ago
now), his was very advanced thinking and in particular very
advanced grappling with the contradictions that continually
re-assert themselves in terms of making revolution in a country
like the U.S.

We have to persevere and make breakthroughs in coming up
with the necessary synthesis, in line and in practice,
particularly in terms of what revolution is, what it aims for,
what kind of revolution is needed, how such a
revolution can actually be made, and what is the relation
between how the revolution is fought and what it is fighting
for. (This is once again the question of "winning...and
winning"--winning in the more immediate sense of overthrowing
the system and how this relates to winning the prize in the
fullest sense--moving to seize power and doing that,
carrying forward the revolutionary process as a whole, in a way
that is consistent with and advances things toward the final
aim of communism, worldwide).

In this regard we can agree and also have to disagree with
certain aspects of the first part of what George Jackson says
in the statement cited above here. He says, "To the slave,
revolution is an imperative, a love-inspired, conscious act."
Overwhelmingly, we agree with that.

It is an act "of desperation." Well, yes, there is
definitely an element of desperation, it is true, but it cannot
be essentially that. Revolution should not be principally an
act of desperation, even though if it doesn't contain
an element of desperation, it won't be revolution. There is not
going to be any revolution or revolutionary sentiments that
don't contain an element of desperation. If there is no
desperation there is no revolution, to put it simply. But here
we have another unity of opposites: Revolution inevitably will
have and must have an element of desperation, but on
the other hand it cannot be essentially defined as an
act of desperation.

Revolution "is aggressive." Yes. "It isn't cool or
cautious." Yes, and no. Essentially, in the principal aspect,
that is correct. Revolution isn't cool or cautious, though
there does have to be an element of what he means by "cool and
cautious," in the sense that it has to be scientific. But
essentially he is correct here, it isn't cool or cautious.

"It's bold, audacious, violent..." Yes. That goes along with
Mao Tsetung's point, which I am sure George Jackson was very
conscious of, that revolution is not a dinner party, or writing
an essay, or doing embroidery, and so on and so forth. It can't
be so courteous, refined etc. It is an act of violence by which
one class overthrows another. So, yes, it is bold and audacious
and it is violent.

What about the next part?--it is "an expression of icy,
disdainful hatred!" Again--yes, and no. It definitely must
have--any real revolution will have--an element of icy
disdainful hatred, but it cannot be principally that. It also
has to be more than that--and he says this himself, in speaking
of how it is "love inspired." But beyond that, it has to be
guided by and essentially infused with higher objectives than
simply revenge. Revolution can't be, in its essential
ideological content, "icy disdainful hatred," even though it
cannot do without icy disdainful hatred. So that's another
unity of opposites.

Again, I think the correct synthesis on these ideological
points does contain elements of what he says, but is more fully
represented by what I wrote toward the end of For a Harvest
of Dragons.** There it speaks of meeting and defeating the
enemy on the battlefield amidst terrible destruction, but in
the process not annihilating the fundamental and essential
difference between us and the enemy. And then the end of that
passage speaks to what are after all the loftier aims,
objectives and character of what this is all about, when it
points to the need to "maintain our firmness of principle and
our flexibility; our materialism and our dialectics; our
realism and our romanticism; our solemn sense of purpose and
our sense of humor."

And, again, what's posed in all of this is how to correctly
deal with the contradiction between the present situation and
the strategic objective of revolution, the seizure of power as
the first great leap in revolution,--the contradiction we
sometimes formulate as between today and tomorrow. In essential
terms, the problem is: how to build a revolutionary movement
among crucial sections of the basic masses, and among broader
sections of people, in the overall conditions of U.S. society,
and do this in accordance with the strategy, along the
strategic road, that can lead to actually waging, and winning,
the revolutionary war to overthrow this system and establish
socialism as part of the worldwide advance toward
communism.

The Road to Revolution

Let's go back to George Jackson's basic approach to these
contradictions. To put it simply, what was his basic
strategy?

In a certain sense, given the emphasis that he placed on the
importance of the military element (which is sort of
encapsulated in that passage from Blood in My Eye
cited above), it was surprising--and it struck me as surprising
at the time--that, when there was a split in the Black Panther
Party, George Jackson ended up going with the Huey side and not
the Eldridge side. I always wondered why that was, and in
re-reading Blood in My Eye different elements of the
answer come through. It is answered very directly where he
recalls how he wrote Eldridge a letter telling Eldridge why he
rejected his line (at the time Eldridge Cleaver's line was for
urban guerrilla warfare) and why what Eldridge was attempting
to do would lead to being smashed. And what George Jackson says
is that to simply engage in military activity without a
political component to it would lead to being isolated and
smashed.

So what he came up with instead was what I would
characterize as trying to give the best interpretation to
Huey's line--the line of "serving the needs of the people,"
which was characterized at one point by Huey as "survival
pending revolution." And the way that George Jackson gave this
a more revolutionary interpretation was by coming up with a
line of trying to combine the military and the political, or
using the military aspect in conjunction with serving the needs
of the people. Increasingly and essentially, under the
leadership of Huey P. Newton, "serving the needs of the people"
became sort of a "social service" approach. But George Jackson
tried to give this a different interpretation, make it part of
a different approach.

Basically, his approach was one of establishing, as he saw
it, a sort of "model" in the inner cities--what he referred to
sometimes as a "Black commune" in the inner cities. He
envisioned that the needs of the people would be met in things
like the "breakfast for children" program and other ways; and
these programs would inevitably come under attack by the
authorities the more that they were actually meeting the needs
of the people; and then various forms of military activity
would be used both to defend these programs and to strike blows
at the other side to get them to back off from attacking these
programs and to back off from attacking the vanguard forces
that were leading these programs.

So it was sort of a combination of political work and a
military element that was objectively largely defensive but, as
he saw it, would have tactically offensive military actions
within it. And this would become an increasing pole of
attraction for broader sections of basic masses and even more
broadly in the society, and through this somehow at some point
it would be possible to move from the overall defensive to an
overall offensive position.

I'm trying to boil this down to its essence. If you read
through Blood in My Eye, this is more or less the
essence of what he is coming up with. It is his attempt to find
a way to deal with this contradiction that is very sharply
expressed in Blood in my Eye: how to find a way to
involve NOW, a lot of the youth who do not expect to live very
long (and this, of course, has become much more acute since the
time George Jackson wrote this). He is searching for a way to
involve these youth now in various forms of activity while also
being able to involve broader masses of people and be able to
set up a model, an attractive force, to win over broader layers
of society and eventually be able to go over to the offensive,
to overthrow the system. It isn't at all clear in his strategy
how you were going to be able to go over to the offensive, and
that's largely because this isn't a strategy that would enable
you to do that, but he was trying to think through these
contradictions.

Now this model, this road he was putting forward, is not one
which can in fact lead to revolution, to overthrowing the
capitalist system. But, again, there is much to learn from the
way he poses the contradictions--and in particular the very
acute point that if revolution is some sort of off in the
distant future type of thing it can have no meaning to someone
who expects to die tomorrow. While ultimately George Jackson's
attempt to resolve this acute and profound contradiction is
wrong and has to be rejected, the fact that he is grappling
with this and even the ways he grapples with it contain
important things that we can and must learn from. Another way
of saying this is that if this line should ultimately be
rejected, because it is not a line and road that can lead to
victory, it should not be one-sidedly rejected or negated.

George Jackson was grappling with some decisive
contradictions. And although his "resolution" does not
represent the correct synthesis--and although, in addition,
there have been, over the last 25 or so years, some significant
changes in the conditions and mode of life of many of the
masses that he seeks to rely on and mobilize--there are
important things that can be learned and must be learned from
George Jackson's writings on these questions. Overall, there is
much to be done--in the realm of theory and of practice, and in
the dialectical back-and-forth between the two--proceeding on
the basis of the line our Party has forged so far and
continually enriching it through this dialectical
back-and-forth. And this overall process should include
critically assimilating important aspects of the contributions
of George Jackson and his thinking on these decisive
questions.

NOTES:

* In "Getting Over the Two Great Humps" Bob Avakian
discusses the challenge for revolutionaries of avoiding two
dangers in the revolutionary process--"settling in" during
periods of revolutionary preparations or getting prematurely
drawn onto a war footing. In talking about these dangers he
uses the metaphor of "Charybdis and Scylla." "Charybdis and
Scylla" were a pair of monsters in Greek and Roman mythology.
In ancient myths they were two perilous hazards in a strait off
the coast of Sicily: Scylla was a dangerous rock and Charybdis
a dangerous whirlpool--which threatened to sink ships
navigating their way through the strait. So we have "Charybdis
and Scylla" along our road--and we have to steer our
revolutionary course between these two hazards (avoiding both
"settling in" and getting prematurely drawn onto a war
footing).

** For a Harvest of Dragons: On the "Crisis of Marxism"
and the Power of Marxism--Now More Than Ever was written
by Chairman Bob Avakian in 1983 to mark the 100th anniversary
of the death of Karl Marx. It can be purchased at Revolution
Books stores and outlets or ordered from RCP Publications, P.O.
Box 3486, Chicago, IL 60654 ($6.95 plus $1.50 shipping).